ArticleScientific data2024
A large dataset of annotated incident reports on medication errors.
Article in Scientific data, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structuring medication safety narratives: development and evaluation of the medication-related incident reports annotation scheme.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- A scoping review of natural language processing in addressing medically inaccurate information: Errors, misinformation, and hallucination.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2025Article
- A scoping review on generative AI and large language models in mitigating medication related harm.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Electronic Prescribing in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Analysis of Prescribing Errors and Risk Factors.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- A pathway from fragmentation to interoperability through standards-based enterprise architecture to enhance patient safety.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Incident reports of medication errors are valuable learning resources for improving patient safety. However, pertinent information is often contained within unstructured free text, which prevents automated analysis and limits the usefulness of these data. Natural language processing can structure this free text automatically and retrieve relevant past incidents and learning materials, but to be able to do so requires a large, fully annotated and validated corpus of incident reports. We present a corpus of 58,658 machine-annotated incident reports of medication errors that can be used to advance the development of information extraction models and subsequent incident learning. We report the best F1-scores for the annotated dataset: 0.97 and 0.76 for named entity recognition and intention/factuality analysis, respectively, for the cross-validation exercise. Our dataset contains 478,175 named entities and differentiates between incident types by recognising discrepancies between what was intended and what actually occurred. We explain our annotation workflow and technical validation and provide access to the validation datasets and machine annotator for labelling future incident reports of medication errors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.